Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[Jonathan Berry]

*"With a Carnot cycle/heatpump combination you cannot reach > 100%"*

If we just assume that the second law is correct, then you are correct,
that it cannot.

But if I ask you why not when there is a thermal potential 2, 3 or 30 times
larger (OR MORE, technically a case for a COP+EER of 60 can be made based
on a published paper's claim of COP only being 30) than it would be created
by say a resistor with the same input energy...

And when the thermal potential between the hot and cold side can with such
an extremely high COP be arbitrarily large due to cascaded heatpumps...  So
we are not limited to a low thermal potential, not that that should matter
because as I have shown the maximum theoretical efficiency of conversion of
heat to mechanical energy is linear due to the ideal gas law having a
linear relationship between temperature and pressure.

Then how would it be logically impossible to convert more of the thermal
potential energy (when I have shown relative to the thermal potential
Carnot Efficiency allows potentially 100% conversion efficiency! and real
world heat engines can hit 66%) than the input?

Not possible to convert a mere 1.6%, that's right with a Coefficient of
Performance of 60 (including the EER) we would only need 1.6% to loop it!

So we have only few possibilities, one is that the Coefficient of
Performance of heatpumps that has been reported is wildly inaccurate and it
would need to be that the combined COP+EER was limited to no more than the
maximum theoretical efficient heat engine efficiency, as the maximum
theoretical efficiency based on the thermal potential (not the gross
thermal energy on the hot side) I have shown to be actually 100% then this
means heatpumps don't work, but there too we would have a problem as the
heat from the hot side of a heat pump would need to be LESS than just using
a resistive heater because the "waste" cold side represents half of the
thermal potential difference!  And even if this were claimed it is
problematic as logically/theoretically heat pumps have a 100% theoretical
efficiency as a resistive load (put the hot and cod output of a heatpump in
a box so the 2 outputs mingle and cancel and you should still have by the
time no sound escapes the box about the same efficiency as a resistor) but
this is an ADDITIONAL 100% to the action as a heat pump!

So a heat pump with a COP of 1 really has a COP+EER+Resistive/friction
output of 3!
Normally the heatpump makes a little use of the thermal output by soaking
up some of the heat output from the compressor which I'm sure is why the
COP on the hot side is a  bit higher than the EER on the cold side.

Another is that the Efficiency of real world heat pumps and even
theoretically perfect heatpumps is way too high, I have shown conclusively
that the maximum theoretical (Carnot's Ideal...) heat engine efficiency
relative to the thermal potential is actually 100%.
As such in theory if heat pumps have ANY total thermal output from the
addition of the cold side, the hot side and the resistive output that
exceeds the thermal potential from a mere resistive load (assuming
resistive loads are not somehow less than 100% efficient) then the second
law CANNOT stand!  And yet how can the COP+EER+Resistive/frictional heating
be only 100% when the Resistive part should be 100% all by itself and the
COP is claimed to be as much as 30 times greater and the EER would be
another roughly 30 times...

Or the second law is in practice able to be violated even if in theory it
can't be!

While thinking about this I found an additional problem that I don't think
can be answered, above I made an assumption that didn't sit quite right.
If we have a gas and we raise it's temperature by say 100 Kelvin and we get
5 PSI and this pushes on a piston we get a certain amount of mechanical
energy based on a given force over a given distance.

If we input twice as much thermal energy it's increase in temperature is
doubled to 200 Kelvin and this leads to a doubling in pressure as the ideal
gas law would predict and the piston moves in effect double the distance to
equalize pressure and so it does double the mechanical work?  Nope, it does
4 times!?

But we have double the energy input and x4 the mechanical energy out!?
If we double it again, we get x16 times more output for 4 times more input
energy!

I ran this by an LLM, we even looked at it as a spring to verify,
compressing a spring a millimeter at a time assuming a linear increase in
pressure of half a pound per mm (why not mix units willy-nilly) compressing
it over 1cm and increasing the pressure to 5 lb of force took a quarter of
the energy that it took to compress it 2cm increasing it to 10 lb of force.

Therefore the energy a spring needs to be compressed or delivers as it is
decompressed increases by square of the pressure!
But thermal energy increases pressure in a linear relationship!

This will create the ILLUSION of the misunderstood Carnot Efficiency where
a higher thermal diff

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jonathan,

With a Carnot cycle/heatpump combination you cannot reach > 100%.

But.. OF course the second law only holds for such simple processes.

We have nano particles that can double the frequencies of photon 
standing waves due to mode suppression.



The main problem is that historically physics is built upon ideal 
processes that nowhere exist.


The second problem is that we have different layers of energy in 
physics. Nuclear physics violates Carnot laws as e.g. fusion reduces the 
entropy. So its a matter of engineering to harvest excess energy and to 
define a better law.


A better definition would be that the energy you can gain from a closed 
system is limited.


J.W.

On 14.06.2024 11:37, Jonathan Berry wrote:
Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws 
in Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the 
second law able to be broken.


It is based on the following truths:

1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the 
thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and 
as such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to 
the invested energy is 100%.  Consider an environment where everything 
is 300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the 
invested energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the 
Carnot efficiency is 25%.   If we have the cold side at absolute Zero 
Kelvin 100% of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us 
it is 100%!  And if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up 
the reservoir 100 degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot 
efficiency drops to 0.1% and again only 0.1% of the total 
thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100 Kelvin reservoir is our input 
energy! https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency


2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in 
pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each 
case the 100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE 
INCREASE (from 0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if 
the same force is placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal 
energy will be converted into mechanical energy from the same amount 
of invested energy.  This includes in the Carnot heat engine 
efficiency is meant to be just 0.1%.   So for our 100 Kelvin of 
thermal energy invested we get the same energy out regardless of the 
offset temp even though the Carnot efficiency changes WILDLY!


3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the 
reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter 
as e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it 
remains in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total 
energy become insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated 
as the thermal energy is being actively used.  So not only is it 
relevant it is also over time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of 
energy as something runs over hours let alone months, years or decades 
the amount of input energy dwarfs the tiny initial thermal ambient energy.


4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy 
invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A 
Carnot ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of 
easily 5 but can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not 
the max and won't include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a 
heat engine can also use!  But the point is if a heat engine can 
always have a max theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world 
efficiency of 60% or higher and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more 
heat than if that energy was directly converted to heat...  Then we 
have first off no basis to explain the efficiency of heat pumps as 
"reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means that the efficiency of one 
is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump is not more efficient 
over a temp range where ideal heat engines are inefficient as their 
efficiency is always 100%!


5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between 
the same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if 
some had higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the 
second law could be broken as the more efficient one can drive the 
less efficient one as a higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent 
of lenz law drag on a generator) and this could create a perpetual 
motion machine, well first off he was assuming that the smaller the 
thermal difference the lower the heat engine efficiency which we now 
know is always 100%, but if it was like he thought his 
arguments breaks down when we put either 2 or more heat engines in 
series (each heat engine is over a smaller thermal potential and would 
have a lower efficiency) or 2 or more heat pumps cascaded can have a 
huge COP (10, 20, 30 or maybe even higher, not that more than 2-3 is 
needed) and an arbit

Re: [Vo]:Peer Review

[End Of Line]

Hi Jonathan,

This is my first message to this mailing list. I used only observe the 
conversation but your message convinced to reply.

First, I'd note I didn't read fully your message but only skimmed it and I saw 
your remark point on the link which was supposed to "prove your point" on 2nd 
law.



> In their experiments, the team was able to generate 69 picowatts of light 
> from just 30 picowatts of energy. They did so by harnessing waste heat, which 
> is caused by vibrations in the bulb's atomic lattice, to compensate for the 
> losses in electrical power. The device also reacts to ambient heat in the 
> room to increase its efficiency and power the bulb.

This means that they only used some ambient energy kinetic / heat caused by 
power propagation losses on the wire.

( so still zero sum law is preserved in bigger "box" aka closed system )


No 2nd law has been yet empirically disproved ( because you can't prove 
something true in physics using mathemical terms ).

Kind regards,
EOL


On June 14, 2024 11:37:02 AM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Berry 
 wrote:
>Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws in
>Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the second law
>able to be broken.
>
>It is based on the following truths:
>
>1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the
>thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and as
>such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to
>the invested energy is 100%.  Consider an environment where everything is
>300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the invested
>energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the Carnot
>efficiency is 25%.   If we have the cold side at absolute Zero Kelvin 100%
>of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us it is 100%!  And
>if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up the reservoir 100
>degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot efficiency drops to 0.1%
>and again only 0.1% of the total thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100
>Kelvin reservoir is our input energy!
>https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency
>
>2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in
>pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each case the
>100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE INCREASE (from
>0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if the same force is
>placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal energy will be converted
>into mechanical energy from the same amount of invested energy.  This
>includes in the Carnot heat engine efficiency is meant to be just
>0.1%.   So for our 100 Kelvin of thermal energy invested we get the
>same energy out regardless of the offset temp even though the Carnot
>efficiency changes WILDLY!
>
>3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the
>reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter as
>e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it remains
>in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total energy become
>insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated as the thermal
>energy is being actively used.  So not only is it relevant it is also over
>time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of energy as something runs over
>hours let alone months, years or decades the amount of input energy dwarfs
>the tiny initial thermal ambient energy.
>
>4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy
>invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A Carnot
>ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of easily 5 but
>can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not the max and won't
>include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a heat engine can also use!
>But the point is if a heat engine can always have a max
>theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world efficiency of 60% or higher
>and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more heat than if that energy was
>directly converted to heat...  Then we have first off no basis to explain
>the efficiency of heat pumps as "reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means
>that the efficiency of one is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump
>is not more efficient over a temp range where ideal heat engines are
>inefficient as their efficiency is always 100%!
>
>5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between the
>same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if some had
>higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the second law could
>be broken as the more efficient one can drive the less efficient one as a
>higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent of lenz law drag on a
>generator) and this could create a perpetual motion machine, well first off
>he was assuming that the smaller the ther

[Vo]:Peer Review

[Jonathan Berry]

Hi, so I have this year become quite convinced that I have found flaws in
Carnot's concepts and how it has been used and how it makes the second law
able to be broken.

It is based on the following truths:

1. Carnot heat engine efficiency is NOT related to input energy (the
thermal potential) but to *total* thermal energy on the hot side and as
such it is meaningless and the true efficiency possible relative to
the invested energy is 100%.  Consider an environment where everything is
300 Kelvin and we heat up a reservoir from 300 to 400 Kelvin the invested
energy in 1/4th of the total energy in the reservoir and the Carnot
efficiency is 25%.   If we have the cold side at absolute Zero Kelvin 100%
of the energy can be used and Carnot's equation tells us it is 100%!  And
if everything is at 1 Billion degrees and we heat up the reservoir 100
degrees hotter than anything else the Carnot efficiency drops to 0.1%
and again only 0.1% of the total thermal energy in the 1,000,000,100
Kelvin reservoir is our input energy!
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/carnot-efficiency

2. If we use the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) to calculate the increase in
pressure of a gas between these 3 temp ranges we find that in each case the
100 degree Kelvin temp rise creates the EXACT SAME PRESSURE INCREASE (from
0 to 100K, 300 to 400K, 1B to 1B+100K) and therefore if the same force is
placed on a piston and equal amount of thermal energy will be converted
into mechanical energy from the same amount of invested energy.  This
includes in the Carnot heat engine efficiency is meant to be just
0.1%.   So for our 100 Kelvin of thermal energy invested we get the
same energy out regardless of the offset temp even though the Carnot
efficiency changes WILDLY!

3. The energy we have not input (the ambient thermal energy in the
reservoir) can be ignored much as can the energy stored in the matter as
e=mc2, this is both because we didn't invest it, it isn't lost (it remains
in the reservoir) and because it's percentage of the total energy become
insignificant if the reservoir is being actively heated as the thermal
energy is being actively used.  So not only is it relevant it is also over
time a tiny and truly insignificant amount of energy as something runs over
hours let alone months, years or decades the amount of input energy dwarfs
the tiny initial thermal ambient energy.

4. If the efficiency of a heat engine in relation to the heat energy
invested to run it can reach 100% of the input energy in theory (A Carnot
ideal heat engine) then the fact that heatpumps have a COP of easily 5 but
can do as high as 30 in literature but even that is not the max and won't
include the simultaneous "waste" cooling which a heat engine can also use!
But the point is if a heat engine can always have a max
theoretical efficiency of 100% and a real world efficiency of 60% or higher
and heat pumps produce 5 to 30 times more heat than if that energy was
directly converted to heat...  Then we have first off no basis to explain
the efficiency of heat pumps as "reverse Carnot cycle" but also this means
that the efficiency of one is NOT the reciprocal of the other, a heat pump
is not more efficient over a temp range where ideal heat engines are
inefficient as their efficiency is always 100%!

5. Carnot also argued that all ideal heat engines operating between the
same 2 thermal potentials must have the same efficiency and if some had
higher or lower efficiencies the lower efficiency then the second law could
be broken as the more efficient one can drive the less efficient one as a
higher COP heatpump (lower thermal equivalent of lenz law drag on a
generator) and this could create a perpetual motion machine, well first off
he was assuming that the smaller the thermal difference the lower the heat
engine efficiency which we now know is always 100%, but if it was like he
thought his arguments breaks down when we put either 2 or more heat engines
in series (each heat engine is over a smaller thermal potential and would
have a lower efficiency) or 2 or more heat pumps cascaded can have a huge
COP (10, 20, 30 or maybe even higher, not that more than 2-3 is needed) and
an arbitrarily high thermal potential between the hot and cold side.

6. While a Heat pump COP of 3 might be enough to drive a heat engine
running (based on real world heat engine efficiencies) to close the loop,
the following can be considered, firstly a COP 5 heatpump is quiet
available but the cooling COP (EER) is going to be similar but a little
lower, say 4.7 or so, well as the heat engine needs a hot and cold side the
colder than ambient cold is just as useful (depending on the heat engine
technology and we can offset the whole experiment if we like) and as such a
COP of 5 becomes closer to a combined COP/EER of 10, and also the rated COP
is running hard out 100% of rated power, when running at lower power the
COP of a commercial heatpump can be higher (double or better!) and go to a
COP of

[Vo]:peer review

[fznidarsic]

I have been trying to publish peer review articles for years.   I have been 
universally blocked.  I thank IE and Amazon for helping to get my work out 
there.  I need to publish one good peer reviewed article.  I had a peer 
reviewed conference paper published but the peer reviewer (co-author) striped 
my paper to the point that it was worthless.


My paper has just been accepted by Benham Chemistry. The fee is $800 to publish 
an open access article.  I would pay this if it would really provide 
credibility.  Will this publication provided any credibility at all?  I am not 
sure.  I could stick with the General Science Journal non-peer review for a lot 
less money.  What do you think?


Frank Znidarsic

Fwd: Re: [Vo]:peer review coming

[Frank Znidarsic]

Thank you for your vote of confidence Chuck.  I've have grown tired of this 
business and do not work on or think about new energy anymore.  I don't even 
feel like working on the paper.  It's time for me to move on.  I may start on a 
new job teaching industrial electricity.  This will take all of my time.  It is 
nice to get a new opportunity in my 60's.

 Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Vo]:peer review coming
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: 
CC: 

I have had a lot of non-peer review PR.  One of my supporters, "The Alien 
Scientist", has just been bared by the internet police.
Sorry this has happened.  I have two books at Amazon and they sold some but not 
well.  IE published numerous articles for me.
Glen Robertson published one paper for me as part of his ISPCS program.  It was 
edited so much that it became Glen's article not mine.
I don't even understand it.


I have finally got a break at peer review at MIT and I am going for it.  I will 
let you know when it comes out.






Frank



-Original Message-
From: Chuck Sites 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 12:05 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:peer review coming


Ahh, the old jump through these hoops and we might publish reply.   Considering 
they said "pretty minor" it may be they hit their limits on number of articles. 
  I wouldn't be too discouraged.   You might want to be proactive with the 
publishers, give them a call on the phone ... poke around,  ask questions, just 
see what kind of people you have to deal with.  Certainly the thing now of days 
is to have a blog or web presents. Partial self publishing can bring eyeballs 
to your subject.  Persevere on Frank.  Your work is good.




On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:29 PM,   wrote:

Peer review comment on my paper.  It's about time and in a major journal.


"Problems like this are pretty minor.  We think the underlying information 
itself is worth developing. So please fix as many problems as you can, and 
resubmit your manuscript."




Frank Znidarsic




http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22






 




 

Re: [Vo]:peer review coming

[fznidarsic]

I have had a lot of non-peer review PR.  One of my supporters, "The Alien 
Scientist", has just been bared by the internet police.
Sorry this has happened.  I have two books at Amazon and they sold some but not 
well.  IE published numerous articles for me.
Glen Robertson published one paper for me as part of his ISPCS program.  It was 
edited so much that it became Glen's article not mine.
I don't even understand it.


I have finally got a break at peer review at MIT and I am going for it.  I will 
let you know when it comes out.






Frank



-Original Message-
From: Chuck Sites 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 12:05 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:peer review coming


Ahh, the old jump through these hoops and we might publish reply.   Considering 
they said "pretty minor" it may be they hit their limits on number of articles. 
  I wouldn't be too discouraged.   You might want to be proactive with the 
publishers, give them a call on the phone ... poke around,  ask questions, just 
see what kind of people you have to deal with.  Certainly the thing now of days 
is to have a blog or web presents. Partial self publishing can bring eyeballs 
to your subject.  Persevere on Frank.  Your work is good.




On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:29 PM,   wrote:

Peer review comment on my paper.  It's about time and in a major journal.


"Problems like this are pretty minor.  We think the underlying information 
itself is worth developing. So please fix as many problems as you can, and 
resubmit your manuscript."




Frank Znidarsic




http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22






 




 

Re: [Vo]:peer review coming

[Chuck Sites]

Ahh, the old jump through these hoops and we might publish reply.
Considering they said "pretty minor" it may be they hit their limits on
number of articles.   I wouldn't be too discouraged.   You might want to be
proactive with the publishers, give them a call on the phone ... poke
around,  ask questions, just see what kind of people you have to deal with.
 Certainly the thing now of days is to have a blog or web presents. Partial
self publishing can bring eyeballs to your subject.  Persevere on Frank.
 Your work is good.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:29 PM,  wrote:

> Peer review comment on my paper.  It's about time and in a major journal.
>
>  "Problems like this are pretty minor.  We think the underlying
> information itself is worth developing. So please fix as many problems as
> you can, and resubmit your manuscript."
>
>
>  Frank Znidarsic
>
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:peer review coming

[fznidarsic]

Peer review comment on my paper.  It's about time and in a major journal.


"Problems like this are pretty minor.  We think the underlying information 
itself is worth developing. So please fix as many problems as you can, and 
resubmit your manuscript."




Frank Znidarsic




http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22






 

Re: [Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:26 PM 5/31/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I posted that as reminder that things used to be a lot worse then 
they are now. We have made social progress. There is no reason to 
think we will not continue to make more progress.


When I read about all the awful things in the past it is sobering, 
naturally, but it tends to make me more optimistic, not less.


I feel the same way. Sometimes, in isolation, things today look 
really bad, but with this long view, they are better than they were.


When we knee-jerk want to change what we don't like now, and are 
unaware of how the present status quo was an improvement over what 
came before, we sometimes, if we are successful, make things worse, not better.


By the way, the use of "peer review" in this title is not meant as a 
joke. The weaving guild was a peer-review association similar to 
modern academic peer-review groups, in good ways and bad ones. 
Guilds did help assure good quality work and education across 
generations. Buildings constructed in 1800 would not still be 
standing today if it were not for guilds. They preserved and 
transmitted knowledge in ways that we could use today even in fields 
such as computer software today, where I sometimes get the 
impression that the lessons of how to do things right are forgotten 
every 10 years. As economic and technical change accelerated, and 
capitalism developed, the benefits of the guild system faded. 
Heilbroner says the guilds and feudal privileges were abolished in 
France in 1790 (during the revolution) and in England in 1813.


The last thing that the industrial capitalists wanted was skilled 
workers organized in the guilds, which were quite equivalent to 
unions as far as relationships with the capitalists were concerned. 
The problem with the guilds was when they forced domination of a 
field by a single organization, which then is easily controlled by a 
few people or even one, and the interests of those who come into 
power often ultimately diverge from the general membership.


This centralization where expertise gets mixed with control is the 
toxic process. Judgment and expertise should, in fact, be separated 
fron the executive faculty, where social norms are enforced. That's a 
very old discovery, otherwise counter-inuitive. After all, shouldn't 
we have the best judges as executives. It might seem that way, but 
power corrupts. Rather, let power be power -- there will always be 
some centralization of power -- but restrain power through devices 
that guarantee the continued and informed consent of the governed, 
and then set up structures to collect and inform the governed, and 
these structures will only be voluntarily centralized, to the extent 
that actually improves efficiency, but not to the extent that a 
faction can take over and exclude from the overall set of structures. 
Call that "independence of the media."


Probably the readers should mostly own media, and then either operate 
their own media (i.e., wikis, etc.) or contract with for-profit media 
to run under the reader's ultimate authority. So if you want pap and 
propaganda, you can pay for it, and if you want real information and 
the best collected judgment, you can pay for that. Which would you 
prefer? And do we imagine that someone is going to *give* it to us, 
free of charge?


The only agencies or organizations that would do that would be, 
effectively, nonprofits that have a high motivation to create neutral 
media. And where will they get their support? Basically, from us, not 
fron special interests, or they would be corrupted. So we might as 
well just own either the media or a supervisory organization that 
recommends, say, what stock to buy. It's more direct, and less 
corruptible. And the way in which we communicate to oversee our own 
media must be independent from it, or else the normal laws of 
oligarchical structure will take over.


You have a great nonprofit that, say, protects the environment. It's 
successful and becomes reputable. Originally operated by volunteers, 
it hires staff and develops a hefty budget, creating a group of 
people intimately connected with the organization and often highly 
respected within it, who now have a vested interest in how it 
operates. Suppose it hits a flat spot and needs to cut back on staff? 
I've been on a nonprofit board and have seen what happens. Even 
though theoretically, the ogranization could back up and use 
volunteers for what it previously used volunteers for.


But that's unthinkable, the staff who would lose their jobs are the 
friends of the board members. So, instead, the organization starts 
using various devices to stave off the day ... like kiting checks. 
They pay the paychecks of the staff, but hold them (obviously, the 
staff has to cooporate with this.) Then they can claim reimbursements 
from matching funds, giving the money to pay the staff. Fraud? Maybe. 
Certainly dangerous! I left the board because I called attention to 
the problem an

Re: [Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

[Jed Rothwell]

I posted that as reminder that things used to be a lot worse then 
they are now. We have made social progress. There is no reason to 
think we will not continue to make more progress.


When I read about all the awful things in the past it is sobering, 
naturally, but it tends to make me more optimistic, not less.


By the way, the use of "peer review" in this title is not meant as a 
joke. The weaving guild was a peer-review association similar to 
modern academic peer-review groups, in good ways and bad ones. Guilds 
did help assure good quality work and education across generations. 
Buildings constructed in 1800 would not still be standing today if it 
were not for guilds. They preserved and transmitted knowledge in ways 
that we could use today even in fields such as computer software 
today, where I sometimes get the impression that the lessons of how 
to do things right are forgotten every 10 years. As economic and 
technical change accelerated, and capitalism developed, the benefits 
of the guild system faded. Heilbroner says the guilds and feudal 
privileges were abolished in France in 1790 (during the revolution) 
and in England in 1813.


Some guild practices such as apprenticeship survive today in Germany 
and elsewhere.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

I wander through some religious history.

At 10:32 AM 5/31/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In France the importation of printed calicoes is threatening to 
undermine the clothing industry. It is met with measures which cost 
the lives of sixteen thousand people! In Valence alone on one 
occasion 77 persons are sentenced to be hanged, 58 broken on the 
wheel, 631 sent to the galleys, and one lone and lucky individual 
set free for the crime of dealing in forbidden calico wares. . . .


Perhaps we should be grateful that all they did or could do was cast 
some nasty aspersions and effectively cut off research funding and 
grad student labor. Surely, however, Jed, you can understand why the 
government acted, it was concerned about the massive economic 
disruption from this diabolical innovation. Yeah, shortsighted, but 
... many governments aren't noted for taking the long view.


In Mecca, the tribal leaders were very concerned that this upstart 
Muhammad was teaching that the gods, the idols in the ancient temple 
there, had no power. Realizing that this might destroy the economic 
foundation of the city, which was incapable of supporting itself 
merely from meager local resources, and which depended on temple 
offerings brought from a large area for survival, and even though 
Muhammad came from a prominent family, they finally had to act, and 
they attempted to assassinate him. But he realized the danger and 
fled. It's called "hijra," or "migration," and the Islamic calendar 
dates from that act. Then, since Muhammad continued his mischief, 
they attempted to attack and destroy him and his followers at the 
city that took him in, Yathrib, and they almost succeeded. (Yathib is 
now known as Medina, short for medinat-an-nabi, the city of the Prophet.)


At one point the Muslims went to Mecca, intending to perform a 
pilgrimage to that ancient temple. They were met outside Mecca by an 
army, ready to prevent them from entering. But a truce was 
negotiated; the Muslims went home, and it was agreed that they could 
come the next year (and the Meccans evacuated the city temporarily 
for that), and this is what happened.


But ultimately the truce was violated, we are told (I do always have 
some suspicion about the history written by victors), and the Muslims 
returned to Mecca. This time, as they had continued to grow in 
support from the surrounding tribes, the Meccans simply surrender and 
nearly all of them accepted Islam or at least stopped fighting it.


When the truce was negotiated, some of the Muslims were upset. 
Surely, they thought, God was on our side, and we don't care if we 
die, we'll receive our reward. But the Prophet had a better idea, 
called "peace." And with peace, they grew in strength and, in the 
end, resolved it all without major bloodshed. When the truce was 
negotiated, they might have won, but it would have been a terrible 
battle, and the Meccans would have been fighting for their homes and 
families, which does tend to motivate people


And this is what happened ultimately: Mecca became a pilgrimage 
center for the entire world, not just the Hijaz, the Arabian 
peninsula. The fears of the town leaders were understandable, but 
short-sighted.


I'm reminded of the whole affair today when I see "Muslims" who 
consider anyone who makes treaties of peace, or who lives in peace, 
with "non-Muslims" to be apostate, appeasers, or cowards. What do 
they think about the Prophet, who made peace when he could have 
fought? And, of course, this is just what's in the Qur'an: "If they 
ask for peace, make peace, and if they plan a plan (i.e., plan to 
trick you), know that God is the best of planners."


The government in France was trying to stop the tide. Not a great 
idea. The particle physicists in 1989 responded with a vehemence that 
was clearly excessive as to any legitimate scientific skepticism. 
Some of them, for sure, even made it clear that this was about 
avoiding wasting money on "pathological science." But, strangely, 
they didn't seem to object to the hot fusion research that was making 
them and/or their colleagues secure for the rest of their careers, 
that poured money into massive research efforts with no real results in sight.


Will some benefit ultimately come from this? I don't know. I do think 
that the hot fusion research was mostly wasted, compared to what 
could have been done with that money. Managing stellar temperatures 
in our human-friendly environment is just too difficult, and, as has 
often been pointed out, we have a nice hot fusion reactor at a safe 
distance of 93 million miles. That's the hot fusion we should use, 
and maybe we'll get something, as well, from cold fusion. I have no 
special confidence that it can be commercialized, and it was an 
error, for sure, for the skeptics to cite lack of proven commercial 
applications as some kind of evidence relating to the science. That 
was just political polemic.


On the other hand, I do suspect that techniq

Re: [Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

I wander through some religious history.

At 10:32 AM 5/31/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In France the importation of printed calicoes is threatening to 
undermine the clothing industry. It is met with measures which cost 
the lives of sixteen thousand people! In Valence alone on one 
occasion 77 persons are sentenced to be hanged, 58 broken on the 
wheel, 631 sent to the galleys, and one lone and lucky individual 
set free for the crime of dealing in forbidden calico wares. . . .


Perhaps we should be grateful that all they did or could do was cast 
some nasty aspersions and effectively cut off research funding and 
grad student labor. Surely, however, Jed, you can understand why the 
government acted, it was concerned about the massive economic 
disruption from this diabolical innovation. Yeah, shortsighted, but 
... many governments aren't noted for taking the long view.


In Mecca, the tribal leaders were very concerned that this upstart 
Muhammad was teaching that the gods, the idols in the ancient temple 
there, had no power. Realizing that this might destroy the economic 
foundation of the city, which was incapable of supporting itself 
merely from meager local resources, and which depended on temple 
offerings brought from a large area for survival, and even though 
Muhammad came from a prominent family, they finally had to act, and 
they attempted to assassinate him. But he realized the danger and 
fled. It's called "hijra," or "migration," and the Islamic calendar 
dates from that act. Then, since Muhammad continued his mischief, 
they attempted to attack and destroy him and his followers at the 
city that took him in, Yathrib, and they almost succeeded. (Yathib is 
now known as Medina, short for medinat-an-nabi, the city of the Prophet.)


At one point the Muslims went to Mecca, intending to perform a 
pilgrimage to that ancient temple. They were met outside Mecca by an 
army, ready to prevent them from entering. But a truce was 
negotiated; the Muslims went home, and it was agreed that they could 
come the next year (and the Meccans evacuated the city temporarily 
for that), and this is what happened.


But ultimately the truce was violated, we are told (I do always have 
some suspicion about the history written by victors), and the Muslims 
returned to Mecca. This time, as they had continued to grow in 
support from the surrounding tribes, the Meccans simply surrender and 
nearly all of them accepted Islam or at least stopped fighting it.


When the truce was negotiated, some of the Muslims were upset. 
Surely, they thought, God was on our side, and we don't care if we 
die, we'll receive our reward. But the Prophet had a better idea, 
called "peace." And with peace, they grew in strength and, in the 
end, resolved it all without major bloodshed. When the truce was 
negotiated, they might have won, but it would have been a terrible 
battle, and the Meccans would have been fighting for their homes and 
families, which does tend to motivate people


And this is what happened ultimately: Mecca became a pilgrimage 
center for the entire world, not just the Hijaz, the Arabian 
peninsula. The fears of the town leaders were understandable, but 
short-sighted.


I'm reminded of the whole affair today when I see "Muslims" who 
consider anyone who makes treaties of peace, or who lives in peace, 
with "non-Muslims" to be apostate, appeasers, or cowards. What do 
they think about the Prophet, who made peace when he could have 
fought? And, of course, this is just what's in the Qur'an: "If they 
ask for peace, make peace, and if they plan a plan (i.e., plan to 
trick you), know that God is the best of planners."


The government in France was trying to stop the tide. Not a great 
idea. The particle physicists in 1989 responded with a vehemence that 
was clearly excessive as to any legitimate scientific skepticism. 
Some of them, for sure, even made it clear that this was about 
avoiding wasting money on "pathological science." But, strangely, 
they didn't seem to object to the hot fusion research that was making 
them and/or their colleagues secure for the rest of their careers, 
that poured money into massive research efforts with no real results in sight.


Will some benefit ultimately come from this? I don't know. I do think 
that the hot fusion research was mostly wasted, compared to what 
could have been done with that money. Managing stellar temperatures 
in our human-friendly environment is just too difficult, and, as has 
often been pointed out, we have a nice hot fusion reactor at a safe 
distance of 93 million miles. That's the hot fusion we should use, 
and maybe we'll get something, as well, from cold fusion. I have no 
special confidence that it can be commercialized, and it was an 
error, for sure, for the skeptics to cite lack of proven commercial 
applications as some kind of evidence relating to the science. That 
was just political polemic.


On the other hand, I do suspect that techniq

Re: [Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

[Alexander Hollins]

the button guild.  The RIAA of their time.

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Quote from R. Heilbroner, "The Worldly Philosophers," (Simon and Shuster,
> 1953), p. 21:
>
>
> We are back in France; the year, 1666.
>
> The capitalists of the day face a disturbing challenge which the widening
> market mechanism has inevitably brought in its wake: change.
>
> The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry
> should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: "If a
> cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he
> must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of
> the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after
> the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of
> the oldest weavers of the guild." One can imagine how many suggestions for
> change were tolerated.
>
> Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the
> button-makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to
> make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant
> that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the
> cloth button makers and even on those who wear cloth buttons. But the
> wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to
> search people's homes and wardrobes and even to arrest them on the streets
> if they are seen wearing these subversive goods.
>
> And this dread of change and innovation is not just the comic resistance of
> a few frightened merchants. Capital is fighting in terror against change,
> and no holds are barred. In England a revolutionary patent for a stocking
> frame is not only denied in 1623, but the Privy Council orders the dangerous
> contraption abolished. In France the importation of printed calicoes is
> threatening to undermine the clothing industry. It is met with measures
> which cost the lives of sixteen thousand people! In Valence alone on one
> occasion 77 persons are sentenced to be hanged, 58 broken on the wheel, 631
> sent to the galleys, and one lone and lucky individual set free for the
> crime of dealing in forbidden calico wares. . . .
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Peer review and resistance to progress in 1666

[Jed Rothwell]

Quote from R. Heilbroner, "The Worldly Philosophers," (Simon and 
Shuster, 1953), p. 21:



We are back in France; the year, 1666.

The capitalists of the day face a disturbing challenge which the 
widening market mechanism has inevitably brought in its wake: change.


The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving 
industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The 
verdict: "If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to 
his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain 
permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and 
length of threads that he desires, after the question has been 
considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest 
weavers of the guild." One can imagine how many suggestions for 
change were tolerated.


Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the 
button-makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are 
beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The 
government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled 
industry, imposes a fine on the cloth button makers and even on those 
who wear cloth buttons. But the wardens of the button guild are not 
yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and 
wardrobes and even to arrest them on the streets if they are seen 
wearing these subversive goods.


And this dread of change and innovation is not just the comic 
resistance of a few frightened merchants. Capital is fighting in 
terror against change, and no holds are barred. In England a 
revolutionary patent for a stocking frame is not only denied in 1623, 
but the Privy Council orders the dangerous contraption abolished. In 
France the importation of printed calicoes is threatening to 
undermine the clothing industry. It is met with measures which cost 
the lives of sixteen thousand people! In Valence alone on one 
occasion 77 persons are sentenced to be hanged, 58 broken on the 
wheel, 631 sent to the galleys, and one lone and lucky individual set 
free for the crime of dealing in forbidden calico wares. . . .



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:peer review

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I have tried for years to get out paper on a peer reviewed  
journal.  Then I realized that I had 25,000 readers

on my web page.


Frank,

Check out:

http://www.helium.com/

You can actually make money there.   I just found out about this  
place.  There is a lot of junk, but there are actually some serious  
cold fusion articles there (intended to be anyway).


Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:peer review

[FZNIDARSIC]

I have tried for years to get out paper on a peer reviewed journal.   Then I 
realized that I had 25,000 readers
on my web page.  
 
_http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/table.html_ 
(http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/table.html) 
 
IE rejected some of my most recent papers.  I think IE is more widly  
distributed but it was much better with Gene and Jed at the helm.  Stevek  is 
doing a 
good job at New Energy Times.  He is going to put up some videos  that I sent 
him. I wonder when he and Jed will burn out.  I  am already brunt to a crisp. 
 
 
 I recently got an off to publish in Bentham Open.  Then I found  out it 
costs $800 to do this.  Will this get me more readers?  I going  to stick at 
what 
I have been doing.  I'm out there enough that I don't need  the peer reviewed 
journals.  I have had enough of them.
 
 


I ACCEPT THE OPEN ACCESS FEE OF US$ 800
I ACCEPT THE OPEN ACCESS FEE  OF US$ 900
I ACCEPT THE OPEN ACCESS FEE OF US$ 600
I ACCEPT THE OPEN  ACCESS FEE OF US$ 600
JOURNAL TITLE:
PAPER  TITLE:
AUTHOR(S):
PAYMENT: Payable to "BENTHAM OPEN"
Bank draft Cheque  Bank Transfer
P.O. Box 7917, Executive Suite Y.26, SAIF Zone, Sharjah,  UAE




**Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.  
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)